>In what ancient document do you find this supposed original Akkadian trinity >with a father-god called "ilu" which was later "corrupted to 'Anu' under >pressure of the Sumerian 'An"? In all of the documents I have seen "ilu" is >the common Akkadian word for "god" and is applied to Enlil, Ea and other
gods >as freely as to An. I have never seen it used as the original name of Anu.

In writing the book, The Origins Solution, I spent nearly two years doing the
research at the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian Institute here in
Washington. I interviewed Ake Sjoberg at the University of Pennsylvania who
was in charge of compiling an eight volume Sumerian/English lexicon. What I
reported in the book was a compilation of over 800 books and articles that
were
written mostly by archaeologists and historians.

And, like theologians and ASA members, they have incomplete knowledge bases
and
don't all agree with each other. However, there is a body of literature that
dates prior to 2800 BC, called the Proto-Literate Period where the corrupted
"Anu" is not found in Accadian literature. (Akkadian is the German
spelling.)
By the time of the writing of the eleventh tablet of Gilgamesh, which is the
Accadian flood legend, polytheism has taken root. So there is an evolution in
Accadian writing which reflects their change in theology due to Sumerian
influence.

The origin of "Babel" appears to be rooted in the Accadian word, bab-ilu, or
"Bab-El," meaning, "gate of God." So ilu clearly is God. Now the question
you
ask is could ilu also mean god? It could.

Some of the material I used came from Gwendolyn Leick, A Dictionary of Ancient
Near Eastern Mythology (New York: Routledge, 1991.

>And what evidence do you have that the Anunnaki were not gods? Every time I >have seen them mentioned, they are gods.

All of the gods have names and are responsible for something. Nanna was the
moon god, Ninurta was the god of irrigation, Haddad was the god of thunder,
and
so on. The anunnaki are always mentioned in plural. They had no names, and
they had no responsibilities. They were not on the same level as named gods,
but they were not human either.

>Until proven otherwise, I must regard all of these conclusions as nothing >more than speculation designed to support your pre-Adamic theory.

Can't prove it Paul, but consider that the Sumerian gods Enki (Lord or king of
the earth) and Enlil (Lord or king of the air, breath or spirit) have the en-
prefix which denotes kingship. Sumerian kings have the en- prefix, such as
Enmenluanna, Enmengalanna, Enmeduranki, Ensipazianna, and so on. And Adam's
two grandchildren have the same prefix - Enoch and Enosh. Coincidence?
Perhaps you don't recognize the difference between speculation and
scholarship.

Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."
--=====================_34254957==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Paul Seeley, you wrote:

>In what ancient document do you find this supposed original Akkadian
trinity
>with a father-god called "ilu" which was later
"corrupted to 'Anu' under
>pressure of the Sumerian 'An"? In all of the documents I
have seen "ilu" is
>the common Akkadian word for "god" and is applied to Enlil,
Ea and other gods
>as freely as to An. I have never seen it used as the original
name of Anu.

In writing the book, The Origins Solution, I spent nearly two
years doing the research at the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian
Institute here in Washington. I interviewed Ake Sjoberg at the
University of Pennsylvania who was in charge of compiling an eight volume
Sumerian/English lexicon. What I reported in the book was a
compilation of over 800 books and articles that were written mostly by
archaeologists and historians.

And, like theologians and ASA members, they have incomplete knowledge
bases and don't all agree with each other. However, there is a body
of literature that dates prior to 2800 BC, called the Proto-Literate
Period where the corrupted "Anu" is not found in Accadian
literature. (Akkadian is the German spelling.) By the time of
the writing of the eleventh tablet of Gilgamesh, which is the Accadian
flood legend, polytheism has taken root. So there is an evolution
in Accadian writing which reflects their change in theology due to
Sumerian influence.

The origin of "Babel" appears to be rooted in the Accadian
word, bab-ilu, or "Bab-El," meaning, "gate of
God." So ilu clearly is God. Now the question you
ask is could ilu also mean god? It could.

Some of the material I used came from Gwendolyn Leick, A Dictionary of
Ancient Near Eastern Mythology (New York: Routledge, 1991.

>And what evidence do you have that the Anunnaki were not gods?
Every time I
>have seen them mentioned, they are gods.

All of the gods have names and are responsible for something. Nanna
was the moon god, Ninurta was the god of irrigation, Haddad was the god
of thunder, and so on. The anunnaki are always mentioned in
plural. They had no names, and they had no responsibilities.
They were not on the same level as named gods, but they were not human
either.

>Until proven otherwise, I must regard all of these conclusions as
nothing
>more than speculation designed to support your pre-Adamic
theory.

Can't prove it Paul, but consider that the Sumerian gods Enki (Lord or
king of the earth) and Enlil (Lord or king of the air, breath or spirit)
have the en- prefix which denotes kingship. Sumerian kings
have the en- prefix, such as Enmenluanna, Enmengalanna, Enmeduranki,
Ensipazianna, and so on. And Adam's two grandchildren have the same
prefix - Enoch and Enosh. Coincidence? Perhaps you don't
recognize the difference between speculation and scholarship.

Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution -
www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."=20